It seems that we have a safety net for regulating food, drugs, environmental products, etc. - the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) - but is there a big hole in that net?

Just this week got a big shocker. I went for my dental check-up (I have my teeth cleaned and checked every 6 months), and I havent' had a cavity in over 6 years. Then suddenly the dentist is telling me that I have not one, but THREE crowns with decay under them. One already has been given the verdict that it has to be extracted. All are molars in the back of my jaw.

So the dentist sends me to a peridontal surgeon who has to cut away some of my gums to put in new crown on one tooth. I'm seeing the dollar marks roll before my eyes, but know that dental health is very important, especially because of its proximity to the brain!

Then the doctor asks how long I have been on Boniva, a once monthly drug for osteoporosis, prescribed by my rheumatologist. (I'm seeing Sally Field's face as we speak). BAM! I'm hit with another mouthful of bad news. It seems there are studies indicating that oral bisphosphonates (Boniva, Fosamex, Actonel, etc.) are causing osteonecrosis in some cases! The very medication that is increase bone density is now shown to be eating bone up. And guess where the most common location is? Yep - the jaw!

The doctor didn't say that this is why I suddenly have these dental caries, but I'm thinking, it could well be. I don't want to sue anybody, and I don't want to keep having broken bones (having just spend 4 months in rehabilitation for a broken foot). I just want approved therapies to be safe.

But it's a Catch 22. On the one hand, we want to speed up the approval process for new treatments (especially Parkinson's whose standard treatment is over 40 years old), but not at the expense of safety.

What's a patient to do? If I were in charge (and thank God I'm not!), the first and most obvious problem in my opinion is the FDA is responsible for too much. Not only do they regulate drugs and treatments, but food, environmental pollutants, plants, and even pet food.

The first thing I think needs to be done is to cut the responsibilities of the FDA to drugs and treatments ONLY. (That's a HUGE responsibility and the FDA is always behiind iin their paperwork). I'd give environmental issue control to the Environental Protection Agency (EPA), and I'd have plants and pet foods as another category, just breaking down their programs from one huge one into smaller ones. Bigger is not always better.

I believe the President's administration is throwing lots of extra money into the FDA and research. Do you think they should be taking a closer look at responsibilities and programs? Or what do you suggest?

Peggy

Peggy,
I am so sorry that this has been happening to you...yecch! Talk about feeling betrayed!

I don't think it's that the FDA is too busy, but I think when politics and the marketplace enter, and when we have former FDA officials becoming chief pharmaceutical lobbyists to the FDA, well, I think some things are just getting out of control in the wink and handshake department.

Cute trick, though - the medication actually makes your condition worse, so you think you have to take more...rather elegant from a marketing scheme design standpoint, but awful for you. I hope you can arrest that decay process right now - everyone is saying (well, all the people I trust) take plenty of Vitamin D3 - at least 4,000 - 5,000 daily.
good luck on this one.
Fiona

Peg - I think the idea of breaking the FDA down between food and drugs is a good one. Is this something that PAN has ever talked about getting behind? Is there already a movement building that they could support?

I knew you would understand. A lot of important decisions are made in the executiive bathroom.

You know, about this dental thing . . . back in there was a rumor going around th at mercury amalgams (fillings) were toxic and that is why many neurolgical illnesses developed. The latest that I read was that it was like asbestos, as long a s you don't break th e seal, it isn't toxic. Some people see a special dentist when they have old mercury fillings worked on. I only know that I have been feeling just awful since this dental work started.

The hoax place, Quackwatch, says that mercury in your mouth is totally safe - the amount of mercury in the metal alloy used to fill teeth was so miniscule that it could not possibly be related. Quoting from this website: "Scientific testing has shown that the amount of mercury absorbed from fillings is too small to be significant."

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...s/mercury.html

But then why did they stop using mercury? I used to play with a drop of mercury from the old thermometers. I recall us kids rubbing it onto a penny to make it appear to be a dime. Oh, the crazy things kids do!

My mouth is full or mercury fillings (or was until I got almost all of my teeth crowned). I found this report dated August, 2009 that says: " Last year Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org) sued the FDA over the issue of mercury fillings. A court settlement required the FDA to remove from its website statements about mercury fillings being "safe" and, instead, to publish this statement: "Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses."

That statement stayed on the FDA's website for several months. But that page has now been removed from the FDA's website (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/P...), returning no results. The FDA also deleted a "question and answer" page from its website that discussed the health risk of mercury fillings.

Instead, the FDA now posts a press release stating that the levels of mercury "released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients." (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsr...)
Mercury fillings are indestructible, says the FDA!

What this so-called "scientific" conclusion really says is that mercury fillings don't produce mercury vapor or mercury dust. But any dentist can tell you that drilling on mercury fillings produces mercury dust that's immediately inhaled by the patient (and the dentist). This video from the IAOMT provides direct visual evidence that mercury fillings quite readily produce mercury vapor just by chewing on them."
http://www.naturalnews.com/026822_me..._fillings.html

Well, I guess I can turn to milkshakes for the rest of my days. I dunno - I'm not sure if trust even comes to play with some government agencies.

Peggy

I don't know why the assumption has been that all these different chemical substances around us are somehow inert. Mercury in our mouths? It seems kinda obvious.... It's like saying germs don't exist or affect us because we can't see them.

I don't know if this is at all edifying, Peg, but while I never had very many fillings in my teeth, quite a few years ago I did get the three mercury fillings I had removed. And I did it in the right order, with the proper blood chelation after, the whole thing. It didn't seem to make a whole lot of difference, although I guess I'm glad I did it.

Like Fiona, I had it done "right" but can't say that I noticed a difference. However, it is kind of like trying to prove a negative statement. I don't know what my progression might have been had I not. I suspect that the damage was already done years before.

As to the idea that the stuff is OK after all-
First- The supposed "seal" that solves the problem gets pulverized everytime you chew, and
Second- it has become well accepted that with environmental toxins, more damage is done by chronic tiny doses that must be dealt with continuously than that done by single large exposures that can be over and done with so that healing can begin.
As for quackwatch, that's a garbage site best avoided.

In psychology, the study of brainwashing, often referred to as thought reform, falls into the sphere of "social influence." Social influence happens every minute of every day. It's the collection of ways in which people can change other people's attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. For instance, the compliance method aims to produce a change in a person's behavior and is not concerned with his attitudes or beliefs. It's the "Just do it" approach. Persuasion, on the other hand, aims for a change in attitude, or "Do it because it'll make you feel good/happy/healthy/successful." The education method (which is called the "propaganda method" when you don't believe in what's being taught) goes for the social-influence gold, trying to affect a change in the person's beliefs, along the lines of "Do it because you know it's the right thing to do." Brainwashing is a severe form of social influence that combine*s all of these approaches to cause changes in someone's way of thinking without that person's consent and often against his will.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing.htm

I am not with PAN any more. I bet Greg Wasson could tell us. I think it would be a very deserving topic.
Peg

thanks, Peg - I talked to Greg - he says nothing is on the radar about this (not just PAN's radar, but no real talk of this happening or being discussed right now)

Hi -

This is what I have been able to find out so far as to whether there has been any serious discussion or action taken to separate the FDA's responsibilities for food and for drugs.

The issue has been discussed among a broad range of individuals and organizations concerned with the regulation and approval of pharmaceuticals, as well as some in the food industry about splitting the functions of the FDA. A good overview of the discussion as of the Spring of 2009 can be found at the following link- http://tinyurl.com/ybd8u6k .

There has also been legislation introduced directly on this topic - H.R. 875 - the Food Safety Modernization Act, introduced in the House by Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro. The legislation would divide the FDA into two separate agencies, a Food Safety Administration and an agency responsible for oversight and regulation of pharmaceuticals and biologics.

Thomas.gov shows the last action on the bill was a referral to the subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry on April 23, 2009. I made a phone call to Congresswoman DeLauro's office this afternoon asking for a clarification of the present status of the bill. I have not heard back from her legislative aide, but if and when I do I will report any further information that can shed some light on this issue.

Hope this helps.

Greg